Comment by advisedwang
8 hours ago
> charged with conspiring to violate worshippers’ civil rights and interfering with religious worship at ... its pastors, David Easterwood, also led ICE’s St. Paul field office
Exciting potential here for government officials to use civil rights laws to attack their enemies
It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service. It doesn't matter how right you think you are.
For context:
A law was passed under President Clinton that made it illegal for protesters to interrupt religious services or impede access to an abortion clinic.
> The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship...
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_E...
We've seen anti-abortion protesters found guilty and sentenced to prison under the same law in the past.
> Six pro-life activists convicted of federal FACE Act charges, face over a decade in prison
https://ewtn.co.uk/article-six-pro-life-activists-convicted-...
Reporting on an event is not the same as participating in it. The first amendment protects freedom of the press as much as it protects freedom of religion.
You can't participate in a mob that enters into religious worship and interferes with it. Lemon is on video interfering with religious service, and the pastor even personally asks him to stop. But even before then, he was no longer reporting on the event as soon as he went in with the mob and did his part to actively interfere.
You're just thumping the table. It's illegal to discriminate against Jewish university students, too, but that doesn't mean that Trump's treatment of Columbia et al was justified. What do you think it means for an official to use the law as a weapon against his enemies?
If you think that me calmly, accurately, and neutrally pointing out what's currently illegal is "thumping the table" then you're helpless, hopeless, and there'd be no point arguing with whatever point you're making here, as you'll interpret it as "violence" and me "attacking" you, I'm certain.
Those of us that believe in preserving civil liberties argue that we should take away powers of the government so it is harder to bully people under the color of law --- the process is the punishment. I'm not sure why the left only cares about this topic now, and not when the left was in power. The Left had a lot of opportunities to take away government powers before Trump entered office.
3 replies →
Some people are wondering if the government has to prove it is a mob, or can just say that, and then do a bunch of illegal things once they assert it. And, whether if that turns out to be a lie, if there are consequences for lying. It would be nice to have clarity there.
The law in question calls out obstruction of religious services.
"It's illegal in the United States to form or participate in a mob that interrupts worship service"
What if it is a mob of religious worshipers that are participating in the mob?
First Amendment, anyone? The right to protest and have a free press?
I guess we're raiding the homes of Congress members we simply disagree with, so Constitutional rights don't carry as much weight anymore.
The right to protest and peacefully assemble doesnt give you the right to do it in private property. The church is church property its open to its members and generally the public but that doesnt make it a public place or public property. If you want to protest a store, you are free to do so on public property outside the store. You are not free to do so inside the store disrupting the purpose of the establishment. The store is private property they are within their rights to refuse your business as long as it isnt based on a protected class.
A church really isnt any different, their business is worship and offering a peaceful place for contemplation, reflaction and prayer. If you disrupt that they can and should ask you to leave and should you refuse that becomes the crime of tresspass.
If you want to be empowered by your rights then you should first take the necessary time to understand them.
7 replies →
Congress members are not above the law, if they commit fraud then they should be investigated and prosecuted.
The right to protest doesn’t give you or anyone the right to do so on private property and to also interrupt with religious practices.
Documenting yourself doing the above doesn’t allow you to get away with it.
4 replies →
You have rights to assemble and protest, they have rights to assemble and worship. It’s all about trying to strike a reasonable balance between your competing rights.
That narrative is what the Justice Dept alleges, but it’s far from settled. Don’t be disingenuous.
It's on video.
2 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Earlier comment flagged so I'm going to repeat the content that gets me flagged."
Journalist 2nd, activist first. Also personal attacks are uncalled for.
[flagged]
Amen. It's sickening how many people will eagerly repeat the paper-thin narratives put out by the regime about "legality", without ever critically considering why and how the regime got involved in a given situation in the first place. We're being subject to rule by law, not rule of law - it went out the window when the Supreme Council decreed a "unitary executive" above the law, aka autocracy by any other name.
[flagged]
1 reply →
Because it's so difficult to avoid protesting in a church huh? I get that you're partisan, but come on, have some common sense.
There are many churches that have needed protesting.
Ah, so the law should only protect the ones that JMKH42 on news.ycombinator.com thinks don't need protesting. I'm sure the top minds in Washington are working hard to accomplish this totally sane and rational suggestion.